Re: [Ntp] Antw: [EXT] Re: Quick review of WGLC for status change for draft-ietf-ntp-update-registries

[Harlan Stenn <[e-mail]>]

On 8/16/2022 4:18 AM, Heiko Gerstung wrote:
> OK, I checked and found out that the ntpq tool in 4.2.8p13 is sending all queries with VN=2 - therefore ntpd is responding with the same version.
> 
> As it seems, there is no standard describing/defining mode 6 or mode 7, so maybe we should treat both as "vendor/implementation specific"?

Toward what goal?

The code has ALWAYS considered mode 6 to be base information that any 
implementation SHOULD/MUST support, and mode 7 as "vendor specific".

What are the costs and benefits of taking a new position that both 
should be treated as vendor/implementation specific?

I would think there would be great benefit to be had for a standardized 
management protocol for NTP.

H
--
> Regards,
>    Heiko
> 
> Am 16.08.22, 13:10 schrieb "ntp im Auftrag von Heiko Gerstung" <[e-mail] im Auftrag von heiko.gerstung=[e-mail]>:
> 
>      The RFC says
>      " VN Version Number (version): 3-bit integer representing the NTP
>         version number, currently 4."
> 
>      It does not make any exceptions for different modes, so why should the meaning of the version number field be different for mode 6 packets? I did not find anything in RFC5905 about mode 6 packets.
> 
>      Regards,
>        Heiko
> 
>      --
>      Heiko Gerstung | Managing Director
>      T: [phone] | LinkedIn Profile <https://www.linkedin.com/in/heikogerstung/> | Twitter <https://twitter.com/hgerstung>
>      [e-mail]
> 
>      MEINBERG® The Synchronization Experts
> 
>      Meinberg Funkuhren GmbH & Co. KG
>      Lange Wand 9 | 31812 Bad Pyrmont | Germany
>      Web: http://www.meinberg.de | http://www.meinbergglobal.com | LinkedIn  <https://www.linkedin.com/company/meinberg-funkuhren-gmbh-&-co--kg>
> 
>      Amtsgericht Hannover 17HRA 100322
>      Geschäftsführer/Management: Günter Meinberg, Werner Meinberg, Andre Hartmann, Heiko Gerstung
> 
>      Do not miss our Time Synchronization Blog:
>      http://blog.meinbergglobal.com
> 
> 
> 
>      Am 16.08.22, 11:22 schrieb "ntp im Auftrag von Harlan Stenn" <[e-mail] im Auftrag von [e-mail]>:
> 
>          On 8/16/2022 2:09 AM, Ulrich Windl wrote:
>          >>>> Harlan Stenn <[e-mail]> schrieb am 15.08.2022 um 23:53 in Nachricht
>          > <[e-mail]>:
>          > ...
>          >> So if we're a V4 server and we get a v5 request, we will respond with a
>          >> v4 packet that says v5.
>          >>
>          >> This is consistent with the design.
>          >>
>          >> No one has seen a v1 packet format in a very long time.  The v1 stuff
>          >> folks are seeing now are v[234] packets claiming to be v1.
>          >>
>          >> The format of the base packet saw a slight change going from v2 to v3
>          >> (sync dispersion was replaced by estimated drift rate), and there was
>          >> (TTBOMK) no change to the base packet from v3 to v4.
>          >>
>          >> The change from v2 to v3 caused no problems that I can recall, and even
>          >> so, I'm unaware of ANY surviving v2 servers out there.
>          >
>          > Well, ntpq 4.2.8p15 is using version==2 when doing mode 6 queries, so there are V2 packets!
> 
>          What exactly does the version field mean in a mode 6 packet?
> 
>          --
>          Harlan Stenn <[e-mail]>
>          http://networktimefoundation.org - be a member!
> 
>          _______________________________________________
>          ntp mailing list
>          [e-mail]
>          https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp
> 
>      _______________________________________________
>      ntp mailing list
>      [e-mail]
>      https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ntp mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp

-- 
Harlan Stenn <[e-mail]>
http://networktimefoundation.org - be a member!